A city poll of the community showed that 88 percent of respondents believe that an appropriate amount of the city budget is being spent on parks and recreation. It seems, then, that any significant increase in the city budget should be spent on something other than parks and recreation.
Which one of the following describes a flaw in reasoning in the above argument?
A. The argument confuses a coincidence with a correlation.
B. The argument confuses the percentage of the budget spent on parks and recreation with the amount of money spent on parks and recreation.
C. The argument does not justify its presumption that what is true of a portion of the budget also applies to the total budget.
D. The argument fails to consider that less money could be spent and a significant percentage of the community would still find that amount to be appropriate.
E. The argument fails to consider that if more money from the budget were spent on parks and recreation, then an even larger percentage of the community might approve of that use of the budget.
For me, D is wrong because, it doesn't necessarily identify the flaw in the reasoning.
The reasoning here is that since 88% of the people believe the current budget to be appropriate, any significant increase in city budget should be spent on other stuff.
While D does state that the argument doesn't consider that less money could be spent and a significant percentage of the community would still find that amount to be appropriate, this doesn't attack our reasoning-conclusion pair i.e. already most people approve current budget and hence a significant increase in budget should not go to recreation.
It might be true that the citizens may think a little less than needed budget to be enough, but what about a "significant" increase. This may fairly result in a negative outcome of disapproval.
Hence I felt E is a better choice here.
95%
(hard)
69%
(02:08)
wrong 
